PRELIMINARY SUPPOSITIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Findings of the Study

Table 1. Comparison of Traditional On-campus Learning and Distance Learning

based on the GWA of the Students

General Weighted Average (GWA)

Mode of Learning
n Mean Std. Dev.
Traditional On-campus Learning
26 7.41a 0.350
(1st Sem. Of A.Y. 2019-2020)

Distance Learning
26 7.25a 0.540
(2nd Sem. Of A.Y. 2020-2021)
*Using Windows Microsoft Excel 2013 and SPSS Statistics Software
*Note: means with the same letters are not significantly different

Table 1 shows the comparison of the academic performance of the students

during their traditional on-campus learning and distance learning in terms of their GWA.
The data shows that the traditional on-campus learning has higher mean GWA than the
distance learning with the values of 7.41 and 7.25, respectively. However, T-test for
Two Independent Means reveals that these means between the two modes of learning
are not significantly different from each other (p=0.206).
These findings are in contrast with the studies previously performed by Bernard
et al. (2004), Allen et al. (2004), and Zhao et al. (2005) but are in-line with the studies of
Beadern, Robinson, & Deis, (2002) and Jedlicka et al., (2002). In the prior studies, they
have found out significant differences between traditional on-campus learning and
distance learning in terms of the academic performance of the students. According to
the study of Russell (), this is due to the fact that students from that time were not totally
adept to distance learning which, more likely than not, uses internet as their primary
medium. Since students of this generation are more used to utilizing the internet and
technology in a more efficient way, they are more flexible in engaging themselves in
distance learning compared to the students before. Furthermore, the difference between
the findings can be also attributed to the fact that the researchers studied different type
of courses as their target population. Thus, the results of this study suggest that the
academic performances of students do not alter regardless of the mode of learning that
they are engaged in
Table 2. Comparison of Students’ Academic Performances in terms of their GWA when
Grouped according to their Geographic Location, Internet Connection, and Sex

General Weighted Average (GWA)

Frequency Mean Std. Dev.
Geographic Location
Urban/ Suburban 14 7.54a 0.297
b
Rural/ Remote 12 7.25 0.301
Quality of Internet Speed Connection
Fast (above 5 mbps) 8 7.63a 0.344
Average (1 mbps to 5 mbps) 10 7.50a 0.246
Slow (below 1 mbps) 8 7.06b 0.184
Sex
Male 16 7.44a 0.342
a
Female 10 7.36 0.374
*Using Windows Microsoft Excel 2013 and SPSS Statistics Software
*Note: means with the same letters for each factor/ category are not significantly different

Table 2 demonstrates the comparison of the academic performances of the

students in terms of their GWA when grouped according to their geographic location
(Urban/Suburban or Rural/ Remote), quality of internet speed connection, (fast,
average, or slow) and their sex (male or female). Results show that more students live
in urban/suburban areas than in rural/remote areas with frequencies of 14, and 12,
respectively. Moreover, Welch’s T-test showed that the mean GWA of students (7.54)
residing in urban/suburban areas are significantly higher than the mean GWA of
students who live in rural/remote areas (7.25).
In terms of quality of internet speed connection, the table illustrates that most of
the students in the current distance learning have average speed of internet connection
with a frequency of 10, followed by fast and slow speed of internet connections with the
same frequency of 8. Games Howell Post Hoc Test, as shown in the table, revealed that
the students with fast and average internet connection has significantly higher means of
GWA than students who only has slow internet speed connection with the values of
7.63, 7.50, and 7.06, respectively.
For the sex, result shows that most of the students that has been surveyed was
identified to be males with a frequency of 16, followed by females with a tally of 10.
Welch’s T-test also showed that the calculated mean GWA (7.44) of the male students
does not significantly differ from the mean GWA (7.36) of females during the distance
learning.
Table 3. Comparison of the effects perceived by students in accordance to their
Geographic Location and Internet Connection

Frequency Percent (%)

Geographic Location
Positive Effects 13 50.0
Negative Effects 8 30.8
None at all 5 19.2
Total: 26 100.0
Internet Connection
Positive Effects 18 69.2
Negative Effects 6 23.1
None at all 2 7.7
Total: 26 100.0

Table 3 illustrates the tally of different perceptions of students with regards to

their Geographic Location and Internet Connection. Out of the 26 respondents, 13
(50%) students perceived that their geographic location has positive effects to their
studies. The most common responses under the positive effects are having easy
access to quality internet connection having a tally of 11 followed by having favorable
learning environment with a head count of 10. Subsequently, 8 (30.8%) respondents
have viewed geographic location as a detrimental factor to their studies with having
unfavorable learning environment as the leading reason comprising 75% of the 30.8%.
While on the other hand, the tally shows that 5 (19.2%) of the students having the
lowest frequency concur that there geographic location has no effect to their academic
performance.

With regards to internet connection, 18 or 69.2% of the students deemed that

the internet have positive effects. In the five choices given under positive effects, aiding
in communication, assignments and researches have the same percentage of 69.2%.
Conversely, only 6 (23.1%) thinks that internet connection has negative effects to their
academic performance. Ease of access and lack of motivation are the most regular
answers under negative effects of internet with a percentage of 83.3% of 23.1% And
only 2 (7.7%) says neither positive nor negative effects have been experienced.
 Frequency Percent (%)
No. of Students who answered “Positive Effects”: 13 50
It is favorable to my learning environment 10 38.5
I have easy access to good quality internet speed
11 42.3
connection
I can easily acquire required academic resources 8 30.8
Others 0 0
No. of Students who answered “Negative Effects”: 8 30.8
It is unfavorable to my learning environment 6 23.1
I have limited to no access to good quality internet
5 19.2
speed connection
I cannot procure required academic resources easily 4 15.4
Others 1 3.8
No. of Students who answered “None at All”: 5 19.2

Frequency Percent (%)

No. of Students who answered “Positive Effects”: 18 69.2
Aids in preparing for examinations and tests 17 65.4
Helps me in communicating with classmates and
18 69.2
professors
Aids in doing assignments 18 69.2
Aids in researches 18 69.2
Aids in providing access to desired information sources 16 61.5
Others 0 0
No. of Students who answered “Negative Effects”: 6 23.1
Interruption during examinations and tests 4 15.4
Limited preparation for examinations and tests 3 11.5
Difficulty in communicating with classmates and
4 15.4
professors
Difficulty in doing homework 4 15.4
Cannot access needed information easily 5 19.2
Poor Time Management 3 11.5
Lack of Motivation to focus in academic related
5 19.2
activities
Internet addiction 1 3.8
Others 0 0
No. of Students who answered “Not at All”: 2 7.7
Table 4. Mode of Access to Internet and Reasons to Lack/Poor Quality of Internet
Speed Connection of Students during Distance Learning

Frequency Percent (%)

Mode of Access to Internet
Broadband Connection (DSL, fiber, satellite, etc.) 15 57.7
Mobile Data Internet Connection (Prepaid or
9 34.6
Postpaid plan)
Public Places with Free Wi-fi (e.g., libraries, malls,
neighbor’s Wi-fi) or Wi-fi Hotspots or Mobile 2 7.7
Hotspots
Others 0 0.0
Total: 26 100.0

Frequency Percent (%)

Reasons for lack/ poor quality of internet
speed connection
Cost of access 13 50.0
Cost of devices 11 42.3
Lack of parental interest 1 3.8
Living in areas that are not serviced by an internet
9 34.6
service provider or has poor internet service
I do not have any problem with my internet
8 30.8
connection at all.
Others 0 0.0

Table 4 displays the different mode of access to internet of students and the
reasons why some of the students experience lack/poor quality of internet speed
connection during distance learning. Results show that most of the students (57.7%)
has broadband connection (DSL, fiber, satellite, etc.) as their main source of internet
connection followed by mobile data internet connection (Prepaid or Postpaid plan) with
a percentage of approximately thirty-five (35%). Lastly, almost eight (8%) percent of the
students go to public place with free Wi-fi (e.g., libraries, malls, neighbor’s Wi-fi) or Wi-fi
hotspots, or mobile hotspots just to avail an internet connection for their current distance
learning.
Additionally, fifty (50%) percent of the students deemed cost of access as the
primary reason to why they lack or has poor quality of internet connection. This was
followed by cost of devices and the reason that they are living in areas which has limited
access to internet connection with a tally of 11 and 9, respectively. Lack of parental
interest to have better internet connection has been considered as the least reason to
why students have little to no access to internet connection with a percentage of roughly
four (4%) percent. Lastly, about thirty-one (31%) percent of the students have no
problem with internet connection at all.
A. Implications of the Study
B. Conclusions
C. Recommendations